COMMITTEE (ON RE-COMMITMENT.)

HC Deb 19 February 1866 vol 181 cc763-803

[The Bill having been Committed, Re-committed, and Considered as Amended, without having been re-printed, great difficulty has been experienced in following out the Motions for Amendments, particularly those of which no Notice had been given. When a Clause has been agreed to, with or without Amendment, the small figures added refer to the No. of the corresponding Clause in the re-print of the Bill No. 24.]

Bill considered in Committee (on re-commitment.)

On the Preamble,

MR. NEWDEGATE

asked, whether the attention of the Government had been called to the claims of insurance companies for compensation for the sums paid by them to persons whose cattle had been slaughtered; and, if their attention had been drawn to the matter, whether they intended to introduce a clause giving such compensation?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that as far as he was aware, the attention of the Government had not been drawn to the matter. He was bound to say, without giving a conclusive answer on a subject with which he might be imperfectly acquainted, that he saw no grounds for thinking that insurance companies were entitled to any compensation for the sums paid by them to farmers whose cattle had died from the plague. The insurance companies paid for the cattle that had died, merely to make up the losses of the farmers, while the object of the Bill was not to compensate the persons who had suffered, but to check the progress of the disease.

MR. NEWDEGATE

thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer misunderstood the Question. What he wished to know was whether the companies were to be compensated, not for the sums they had paid to persons whose cattle had died, but for the sums they had paid to persons whose cattle had been slaughtered by the cattle inspectors.

MR. HUNT

rose to order. They were now on the Preamble, and there was nothing in the Bill before the Committee bearing on the subject introduced by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate). The matter was a very fitting one for discussion at the proper time.

MR. BARROW

asked the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt), whether he could in conscience proceed with his Bill on that night. When he (Mr. Barrow) entered the House, he found on the paper two pages of Amendments which were to be moved on the clauses of the Bill. There was scarcely a clause in the Bill on which an Amendment was not to be moved. The printed Notices were only put into his hands at three o'clock that afternoon, and hon. Members had had no time to consider the Amendments. He therefore asked the hon. Member for Northamptonshire not to proceed with the Bill on that evening.

MR. HUNT

said, it would be very much against his conscience not to proceed with the Bill. The Amendments were delivered with the printed papers that morning. Several important clauses of the Government Bill which passed last week were not printed at all, and he had grave doubts at the time whether he ought to have accepted them; but so anxious was he that the Bill should be sent as early as possible to the other House, that he refused to delay the Bill by forcing on the consideration of the Committee his own objections to them. The Committee was well aware of the great difficulty which an independent Member had with regard to such a complicated Bill; and he hoped, under the circumstances, that the Committee would extend to him its indulgence, and would not arrest the Bill on account of the objection raised by his hon. Friend.

MR. ACLAND

expressed his thanks to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt) for the great labour and attention he had devoted to this subject, and asked him to state what was the general scope of his proposed Amendments.

MR. HUNT

said, his intention was to have reserved that statement until he came to the 13th clause; but he was in the hands of the Committee, and would either make his statement then, or delay it until he came to the 13th clause.

MR. ACLAND

said, that as the 5th clause raised a very important question with regard to the appointment of officers, he thought it would be better for the hon. Gentleman to make his statement at once.

MR. HUNT

said, that as it appeared to be the wish of the Committee he would proceed at once to state the general scope and object of his Bill. But first, he would take that opportunity of thanking hon. Gentlemen on both sides the House for the assistance they had given him, not only in the preparation of the Bill, but since its introduction. He had received suggestions on the subject of the Bill from Gentlemen of all parties, and representing every shade of opinion; and only the great difficulty of finding an opportunity for fully discussing the question with every Member who had communicated with him with reference to his Bill had prevented from giving every Gentleman that amount of time which the importance of the subject demanded. The principle of the Bill now under consideration was that adopted at the conference at St. James' Hall—namely, that for a certain space of time there should be no movement of cattle through Great Britain. That principle was also affirmed at that most important meeting recently held in the tea-room of the House, at which Members of both Houses were present, and at which both of the great political parties were about equally represented. Now, it was a very easy thing to assert as an abstract principle, that for a certain period all movement of cattle in Great Britain shall be stopped; but to carry that principle into action was very difficult indeed. He had introduced into his Bill—and it would be necessary to introduce into any Bill on the subject—certain exceptions to the general rule forbidding all transfer of cattle from one place to another. The Home Secretary stated, a few nights since, that it would be impossible to lay down any code of rules regulating the transfer of cattle which would be applicable to the requirements of every part of the country. He believed that to the rule laid down by the right hon. Gentleman there was one important exception. He believed that if any one of them were to sit down in his own library to frame such a code, however great his knowledge of agricultural matters might be, he could not possibly succeed. In the House of Commons, and in the House of Commons alone, it was possible to frame a satisfactory Bill, which, while laying down as a general rule that all movement of cattle should cease for a certain period, should point out the exceptional cases in which that rule might be safely dispensed with. That House contained Members representing not alone every part of the country, but almost every interest in the country. That these Members took an interest in the question was evinced by the fact that since he had introduced his Bill he had received communications from, he believed, half the Members of the House. The problem he had tried to solve was to lay down a code with regard to the removal of cattle sufficiently elastic for every county, and yet without a single exception beyond what was absolutely necessary for carrying on the business of breeding and rearing cattle. The principle he went upon was the total prohibition of the movement of stock for the longest time possible, and he came to the conclusion that the 25th of March was the furthest day up to which the absolute prohibition was practicable. He admitted, when he said "total prohibition of moving of cattle" that it would not be absolute prohibition, because there were certain exceptions. As the Bill was originally drawn, he provided that up to the 25th of March there should be no movement of live beasts upon any public highway, railway, river, canal, or any part of a river not navigated by sea-going vessels. The exceptions were, in the case of beasts moving from one part of any farm to another they might be moved along the highway for 200 yards only. Beasts landed from a sea-going steamer might travel 500 yards along the highway. Beasts travelling from the farm to the slaughterhouse might, provided there was a licence, traverse a distance along the highway not exceeding two miles. That was to be the state of things up to the 25th of March. Certain exceptions bad, however, been suggested. The first was by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berkshire (Colonel Loyd Lindsay),who said that there ought to be a power to remove calves from dairy farms on which they had been dropped to be reared on other farms. He proposed to meet this case by allowing newly dropped calves to be conveyed in carts from the farms where they were born. Although he thought it right to admit this exception, he doubted whether farmers would avail themselves of it to any large extent, because they would be shy of purchasing calves of the value of a few shillings that might convey the infection. A great deal of disease had been introduced upon farms by the practice of taking calves that people know nothing about. Two other exceptions had been suggested to him. The first was as to working oxen, employed in the cultivation of the soil. It was thought that the working of farms where oxen were employed could not go on unless an exception were made in their favour. The demand was reasonable; but he required that the oxen should be either drawing or in harness, and this would be some security that they were in health. Another exception would enable sea-going ships to get a milch cow on board. It was represented to him as highly important that children and others in emigrant ships should be able to obtain milk, and those who asked for this exception were willing to convey the cows to the place of embarkation at their own expense in covered carriages. To meet this case, he had inserted a clause excepting from the operation of the Act milch cows placed on board sea-going vessels. These were the only exceptions to be allowed up to the 25th of March. It had been represented to him—and he concurred in the representation—that the interval between the present period and the 25th of March did not allow sufficient time to operate on the disease—he did not say "to stamp it out" because, although if measures had been taken in time this might have been done, there were now so many centres of infection that all he could hope was that they might be able within a few weeks to get the plague within manageable compass and in time to extirpate it. From the 25th of March for a certain period it would be necessary there should be some further relaxation of the restrictions of the Bill. On that day, in some parts of the country, incoming tenants took possession of their farms; and in the 17th clause he proposed to allow upon certain days, at the usual time for change of tenancy in the Spring and Michaelmas quarters in England and Scotland, beasts, if sound, to be removed, with a magistrates' licence, along the highway. There were some tenancies which did not expire on the regular days; and therefore he had a proviso that that enactment should extend to any change of tenancy which was proved to the satisfaction of the justices granting a licence not to occur on the days aforesaid; and by an Amendment on the paper eleven days were allowed to the incoming and the outgoing occupiers to move their stock. It had been represented to him that sales might take place before the day of change of tenancy arose; but to obviate that difficulty he thought it would be merely necessary for parties to insert in the conditions of sale that the beasts, though sold on other days, should not be movable till they could be legally moved under the provisions of the Bill. In different parts of the country the grass began to grow during April and May, and it was absolutely necessary that the ox should be brought to the grass; but it seemed to be impossible to lay down the period, if it was to be a short period, when the movement of stock for eating such grass should be allowed. He therefore provided that the local authorities—and this was about the only discretion he gave them—might, with reference to their districts, prescribe the particular days on which such stock should be moved. He did not give them a very wide latitude, because he proposed that those days should not exceed fourteen in each quarter. His Bill, if passed, might continue in force until the end of the Session of Parliament next following the pro-sent one; but after the end of April the Government would have the power to stop its operation on their responsibility if they thought fit. Supposing, however, that the Bill should not be discontinued by Order in Council, then it would remain in force. Then he provided that there should be fourteen days of movement for the purpose of stocking farms, the period to be fixed by the local authorities in each case. But a question had only the other day turned up which was familiar to Scotch, though not, perhaps, to English Members—he meant as to grass-parks. The letting of grass-parks appeared to be much the same as that which in his county was called grass-keeping. At a certain period of the year, for so many weeks, grass-keeping was let by the owners or occupiers of farms by auction or contract, and the person who hired it was allowed to turn any amount of stock into that pasture. It had been suggested to him that a man might want to shift his stock from a grass-park oftener than could be done in fourteen consecutive days. He therefore provided that the local authorities, instead of allowing movement for fourteen days consecutively in a quarter, might divide the fourteen days into two periods of seven days each to suit the grass-park owners. He put this restriction on the movement of cattle from one end of Great Britain to the other for stocking farms even within those days: he did not allow them to come by road through the conutry; he required that they should travel by railroad except in the counties in which they started and in which they arrived. The Committee would recollect that he made a great point of stopping movement by railway up to the 25th of March, and what he proposed now was not inconsistent with what he had insisted upon in regard to the other Bill, because, according to the clause respecting railway trucks, by the 25th of March every such truck would be cleansed and disinfected under official superintendence; and he looked to the Government to see that that was done. If, therefore, his Bill passed and was carried out, on the 25th of March they would start with every cattle truck on every railway in Great Britain cleansed and disinfected; and then there would be no danger in allowing animals, as soon as the grass began to grow, to travel by railway. He next came to the vexed question of the relaxation for the purpose of breeding. Many persons had been anxious that the relaxation for breeding should find its place among the earlier exceptions—namely, those to take effect before the 25th of March. That proposal he had strenuously resisted. By the Bill already sent up to the other House, all animals affected by the cattle plague were to be compolsorily slaughtered, and all animals that had been so exposed to infection as in the judgment of the local authorities to be likely to have the disease were also to be slaughtered. But, so late were they with their legislation, that they would not get two periods of what was called by veterinary surgeons the "incubation of the disease" before the 25th of March. An animal might have caught the disease fourteen days before it showed itself. After being sold it might communicate it to the other animals in a yard; and thus they would want another fourteen days before they could tell whether the last named animals were not also infected. He thought it would be undesirable, therefore, to grant a relaxation in favour of movement for breeding purposes before the 25th of March. At that period of the year most cows were in calf, and such a relaxation was not so absolutely necessary in most parts of the country as at a later time. Again, the owners of bulls in every county where the cattle plague existed had of themselves interdicted all comers; and in his own county he could say that such a relaxation would be entirely nugatory. A relaxation for that purpose involved a double danger, because there would be not only the removal of the one animal from the premises it had occupied, and which might be infected, but, on the other hand, though it were perfectly sound, the premises to which it was taken might be infected. Therefore, a licence of that kind would be attended with greater risk of spreading the disease than any other, because most of the other licences under the Bill were for animals to go away and never to come back, whereas this particular licence implied the return of the animals. He had made the provision with regard to breeding the same as in his original draught of the Bill; but it had been suggested to him that it would be safer to extend that provision to the male animals, because many persons being wholly unable to meet their requirements, owing to the restrictions, would rather purchase a male animal than run the risk of sending their cows about. Therefore, since the introduction of his Bill, he had prepared a provision allowing a bull to be moved a distance not exceeding twenty miles to any place where cows were kept. He had now gone through the exceptions which he thought absolutely necessary after the 25th of March. But he must remind the Committee that when the period of relaxation with regard to the change of tenancy and the relaxation allowed for the purpose of stocking farms were at an end, the Act would close up again, and its stringent provisions would be once more in force, so that no movement of cattle would then be permitted, save under those exceptions which he had referred to under the head of movement up to the 25th of March. For the sake of clearness, then, he would state that he proposed that the Bill should be in force at all events up to the end of April, and that after that date the Government should have power by Order in Council to discontinue the operation of the Bill, if they deemed it wholly unnecessary, or found it to impose insuperable difficulties upon the carrying on of business. That the Government could do either on their own responsibility, or if Parliament was sitting they could relieve themselves of responsibility by asking for its opinion on the subject. He should, in conclusion, be happy to afford any other explanations which the Committee might desire.

MR. ACLAND

thanked the hon. Gentleman for the explanation he had given of the Bill. As he understood the principle of the Bill it was that one uniform system was to be laid down for the whole of England and Scotland during the existence of the cattle plague; next they had to consider five exceptions which were to qualify the general prohibition of movement before the 25th of March; and then they had a class of exceptions which were to come into operation after that date. He thought that, in one sense, the hon. Gentleman had rendered a very great public service in sketching out a sort of skeleton measure which might be left to the local authorities to clothe with flesh and blood; but the mistake he had committed in his Bill was that it endeavoured to establish an uniform system where uniformity was manifestly impracticable. There was not the slightest distinction made in the Bill between infected and uninfected districts; and the practical consequence was that, as the hon. Member was determined in theory to have a uniform system, his measure, while it would be too stringent for the healthy districts, was not half stringent enough for the infected districts. The hon. Gentleman was therefore obliged to cover the whole of Wales, a large part of Scotland, and considerable portions of the south of England with a web and network of exceptions nearly as complicated and difficult to be understood as if the quarter sessions of each county were allowed to make its own set of regulations. Up to the 25th of March cattle were to be prohibited from moving, except within the limits of a farm, unless it happened to be crossed by a road, then they might be moved along that road for 200 yards only. He must say he thought 200 yards a great deal too much. If there was danger in their going on the road at all, the utmost that should be allowed without a licence or certificate from competent authorities locally interested was removal to the homestead or from one field to another. A movement for 200 yards might be quite enough to do all the mischief which the hon. Gentleman was anxious to prevent. Again, the hon. Member proposed to permit imported cattle to go 500 yards from a ship in any port to any place for slaughter. Was that founded on a practical investigation of the necessities of the case, or merely a random guess? His own belief was that there were many ports where 500 yards might be more, and others where it would be less than was wanted. Another clause allowed a movement of two miles to a place of slaughter. Would that be enough in the case of the metropolis, in that of Liverpool, or that of Bristol? Certainly these provisions ought to be based on practical facts, and he objected altogether to the drawing of mere arbitrary lines in such a matter. Again, he could not understand the precise reason why the hon. Gentleman meant to give to most parts of England fourteen days of licence and liberty to do almost what they pleased. ["No!"] That at least was his reading of the Bill. Recollecting the very large majority by which the hon. Gentleman had beaten the Government on the question of the removal of cattle by railway, he was much surprised to find the House about to be landed on a positive rule that cattle should go by railway and not otherwise. It seemed to him that the proper course would be to allow no removal at all except by licence. Then if they laid down the general principle that when the disease was in any part of Great Britain the presumption should be that cattle must only move by licence, Parliament should prescribe the nature of that licence, and in general terms the conditions on which it was granted; and then they would require some discretionary power to be vested in some authority to abolish the licences or suspend them for a limited time until it was found that they might be safely used. In certain districts where the plague raged he thought such stringent measures would be required that no man should be allowed to move his cattle beyond his own hedges, nor to cross a highway at nil. They had large parts of England which for practical purposes were perfectly healthy; but if they were determined that, rightly or wrongly, no beast should be taken there by rail, they ought to take care that they did not set the people of the locality, whose help they wanted, against them and induce them to evade the law. Some discretion should be vested in the local authorities; and in certain cases it would be better that they should report to the Secretary of State. He thought, too, that the Secretary of State, acting upon evidence reported to him by persons cognizant of the facts, should have power to take away this power of licence altogether in particular districts. There should be some means of intercourse between the breeding and feeding districts; but in the present measure there was no adequate provision for that, although it had been provided for by the Joint Committees under the other Government Bill. With regard to the licences, it was rather a question of detail than of principle; but it was a matter of importance that the licences should be given by men of responsibility. The plan which the hon. Member proposed was to vest this responsibility in practical men to be chosen locally; so far good, but he thought the object in view would be altogether defeated by requiring the appointment of a cattle overseer for every pariah, for there were many parishes which could not furnish fit men, and two or more small parishes might be placed under one officer. He would suggest that the clause should be altered, so as to provide that, at the discretion of the local authorities, cattle overseers should be selected either by Boards of Guardians, by highway boards, or by the cattle plague committees of quarter sessions. He thanked the House for allowing him to state the general principles on which he should be disposed to discuss the details of the Bill, with a view to adapt it to local circum-Stances.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

hoped that they would be allowed to get to work at once upon the Bill, for many remarks that had been made would have to be made over again when they came to the appropriate clauses.

MR. BARROW

said, that the Bill was read a second time without an opportunity being afforded for discussion, and therefore he thought there was some justification for making a few observations on its principle on the present occasion. To that principle he was opposed. Fidelity to his constituents, who preferred the Government Bill before this, required him to remove to some extent the impression produced by the alleged unanimity of the two great meetings. That at St. James' Hall was addressed by speakers who went to support a particular view, but the majority of the meeting did not vote for the resolutions; while the third Resolution passed by the meeting in the tea-room of the House affirmed that it ought to be permitted to remove cattle from one district to another in districts which were declared to be free from infection. To prohibit the removal of cattle 100 yards along the highway, or along an occupation road from one field to another in the same holding, would be to carry a principle to an extravagant excess, and to enact a law which could not be enforced. It would be better to leave such regulations, and the proclamation of infected districts, to the local authorities. His constituents had declared that they preferred the Bill of the Government to that of the hon. Gentleman.

Preamble postponed.

Clause 1 agreed to. [cl. 1.]

Clause 2 (Extent of Act). [cl. 2.]

MR. BOUVERIE

observed, that in looking through the Bill he found that the whole of the machinery which it provided was to be purely English machinery, not at all adapted to Scotland, to which country, also, it was intended that the measure should apply. That was a defect which ought, he thought, to be obviated.

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

could assure the right hon. Gentleman that Scotch interests were being carefully attended to by the promoters of the Bill, who were anxious at every stage to adapt it to the means of making its provisions available in Scotland.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3 (Interpretation), and Clause 4 (What Beasts to be deemed sound, and what diseased), postponed.

Clause 5 (Guardians of Poor to appoint Cattle Overseers).

MR. DENT

objected to the appointment of overseers under its operation by the guardians of the poor, contending that their duties, though not exactly the same, would clash with those discharged by officers nominated under the Government Bill by the local authority. He should therefore move the omission from the clause of the words "guardians of the poor for each union, parish, or township," and the insertion of the words "local authority" instead.

MR. HUNT

said, the words "cattle overseers" were in the Government Bill originally, and, although they had in its passage through the House been struck out of it, he could not help thinking it desirable they should be retained in the present measure. The guardians of the poor, by whom it was proposed that the cattle overseers should be appointed, were an elective body in whom the farmers had confidence. He had asked several farmers whether they would be satisfied with overseers so nominated, and their answer was "entirely." "The local authority," he might add, consisted of the magistrates met in quarter sessions, and who, not being so well acquainted with the farmers, would not be likely to make a selection pleasing to them as the guardians of the poor. It was advisable, therefore, he thought, that the clause should remain as it stood. He should have prepared Amendments to meet the case of Scotland, but that he had been informed by the Lord Advocate that he would take that task upon himself. If those Amendments were not already prepared, they might be brought up on the Report.

SIR HARRY VERNEY

said, that if the Bill passed in its present shape, there would be in some unions a greater number of overseers than would be required, while in others the number would not be sufficient.

SIR ANDREW AGNEW

was understood to say that it would be found very inconvenient to assemble the Poor Law Guardians in Scotland.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

thought it was desirable that the local authority should be invested with the execution of the provisions of the Bill, otherwise it would clash with the Government measure.

MR. OWEN STANLEY

thought the Bill bore evidence that the hon. Member for Northamptonshire sought to legislate rather for the central counties of England than for the whole country as well as for Scotland. For his own part, he had a strong objection to the appointment of overseers being vested in the guardians of the poor. The magistrates were, in his opinion, the best persons to whom to intrust the power.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, the discussion which had taken place showed how great the difficulty was of framing regulations applicable to the whole country. It was quite impossible, he maintained, that the clause as it stood could be worked in the North of England. In his own immediate neighbourhood, for instance, there were half-a-dozen different parishes in which there was only one rated occupier who must necessarily, if the Bill passed in its present shape, be a cattle overseer—and give certificates for his own cattle. If the hon. Gentleman looked at the 9th clause he would find that every local authority could appoint as many inspectors "and other officers" as might be necessary. In his opinion it would be much better to trust to the officers Appointed by the local authorities to carry out this duty, instead of appointing cattle overseers. The clause clashed with the provisions of Clause 21, and the objections to it in its present form were, in his opinion, quite insuperable.

MR. HUNT

said, he wished to have a security that the animals to be moved should be sound within the meaning of the Act, and he thought this could only be obtained by requiring from some persons connected with the locality a confirmation of the statement of the owners of the cattle. To expect that a mixed committee of farmers and magistrates, no one of whom might come from the immediate neighbourhood, could know whether or not there was disease on a particular farm, seemed preposterous. As, however, the Committee appeared to be against the clause, he would withdraw it, and the consequence would be that the licences would be granted on the mere word of the owners, who would have to go before a committee who might know nothing of particular cases brought before them.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, the clause would supersede the regulations made under the present Orders, by which licences were given by justices of the peace on the declaration of the owner and of farmers, who would know what was going on in their own neighbourhood.

MR. HUNT

said, he would consent to the clause being struck out, and he would confer with the right hon. Gentleman as to what should be inserted in its place with a view to obtain a confirmation of the declarations made by the owners of cattle.

Amendment withdrawn.

Clause struck out.

Clause 6 (Chief Constable in county to appoint additional Constables).

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, that this and the three following clauses, which gave power to the chief constable of any county to appoint additional constables, were, in his opinion, altogether unnecessary. The police force of the several counties had already been temporarily increased with the sanction of the Secretary of State. He thought it would only complicate matters to pass this clause.

MR. BANKS STANHOPE

thought that extra police were required in order to prevent stock going along a road from coming into contact with cattle in fields near the road.

SIR ANDREW AGNEW

was of opinion that the clauses would complicate the existing machinery.

MR. HUNT

said, that under this clause many persons could be appointed constables who could not be appointed under the provision alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman. As, however, his great ob- ject was to pass the clauses relating to the movement of cattle, and as the present clauses were likely to raise a discussion which would occasion the loss of valuable time, he would consent to withdraw the Clauses 6 to 11, both inclusive.

Clause struck out.

Clauses 7 to 15 struck out.

Clause 16 (Overseers to provide Slaughterhouses for Parish).

MR. CRAWFORD

said, the clause required that on a requisition in writing from a certain number of ratepayers a slaughterhouse should be provided in each parish. This would lead to much inconvenience in the City of London, which comprised ninety-eight parishes, and he would therefore propose to add these words "with the consent of the local authorities."

MR. HENLEY

said, he thought that some discretion should be allowed in this matter. The slaughterhouses might be required only for a couple of months. Every overseer would naturally call a vestry meeting and take the sense of the vestry upon it. He hoped, therefore, his hon. Friend would consent to add the words if "they think fit."

MR. HUNT

said, he required the parish authorities to provide these slaughterhouses because he hoped they would become permanent. He contemplated a great change in the meat trade, which would make it necessary to have them permanent. He was quite willing to accept both Amendments, so that the clause would run thus, "With the consent of the local authorities, the overseers of the poor may, if they think fit," &c.

MR. BARING

wished to ask the hon. Gentleman to consider the effect of this clause on the general state of the law relating to slaughterhouses all over England. At present considerable precautions were taken to prevent slaughterhouses from being erected in improper places, especially in the immediate vicinity of great towns and in the midst of large populations: but according to this clause, upon the requisition of three ratepayers, the overseers of the poor, with the consent of the mayor of a borough, might erect slaughterhouses without inquiry, without licence, and without enabling persons to state objections. Nor was the clause intended for a temporary purpose. On the contrary, his hon. Friend contemplated that the arrangement might become permanent. Therefore, by this clause his hon. Friend asked the House to make an alteration in the general law of the land—an alteration which would hardly be consistent with the due protection of the public. It should be recollected, too, that all this was to be done at the public expense, for these slaughterhouses were to be paid for out of the poor's rate.

MR. HUNT

said, if his hon. Friend had cast his eye on the paper of Amendments he would have seen that he intended to propose a clause giving power to justices to license slaughterhouses.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, as he understood the Bill, two borough magistrates could be empowered to license these slaughterhouses. Parliament had endeavoured by recent legislation to prevent slaughterhouses from being used in populous places; but this Bill would give the local authorities an opportunity of saying that they had the sanction of Parliament to do so, and they could grant a licence contrary to the course of the general legislation of that House. He thought the better plan would be to postpone any legislation on the subject for the present.

MR. AYRTON

trusted the hon. Gentleman would consent to strike out the clause. In the first place, it had been reduced to a permissive clause. ["No!"] Well, then, it was equivocal if not permissive. He would beg to point out to the hon. Gentleman that these slaughterhouses were to be paid for and maintained for all time hereafter out of the poor rates. Now, that gave rise to a very important question—namely, whether any class in the community were entitled to have their business carried on at the expense of the public. He could not conceive why any person interested in the slaughter of cattle should get that business done at the expense of the poor rates. On what ground could they call on the parishioners out of the rates to pay for this particular business?

MR. LIDDELL

said, that in many farms there were neither places to slaughter cattle in, nor persons who knew how to slaughter them.

VISCOUNT CRANBOURNE

said, the question of slaughtering cattle was beset with difficulties, one of which was that of providing a skilled slaughterer; while another was the difficulty of finding land upon which slaughterhouses could be built; and neither of these was met by the clause, which simply provided the funds for building slaughterhouses. He imagined that the demand for beef would soon be very great; and as the price would probably rise considerably, the butchers would be well able to pay for the requisite accommodation.

MR. LOCKE KING

said, that by the clause as it now stood, these farmers could procure the erection of a slaughterhouse. He thought that the vestry ought, as it should bear the expense, be the body authorized to erect or hire the slaughterhouses.

MR. BANKS STANHOPE

supported the clause, which was intended solely for the benefit of the consumers, and would confer no benefit on the producers. He had no doubt that on large farms the necessary appliances for slaughtering a beast were always to be found; but this was not the case in small farms, and there were some parishes in which there were very few large farms.

MR. OWEN STANLEY

said, it was both difficult and dangerous to slaughter a beast on any farm where cattle were fatting. If fat cattle smelt the blood of a slaughtered beast it would throw them off their feed for a long time.

MR. HUNT

said, he concurred in the statement that there might not be much difficulty in the case of large farms; but it might be convenient for the owners of a few beasts in a parish to have a parish slaughterhouse provided. There was a difficulty in some cases in killing beasts upon a farm, and if the clause were rejected it would come to this—that fat cattle would have to be moved along the high roads to places where they could be slaughtered. It had been decided by the House that cattle should not be moved along railroads, and it was thought desirable that the greatest restrictions should be placed on the movement of cattle on roads. He had, therefore, proposed the clause now under discussion, and he feared that if the clause were struck out, the principle involved in the Bill would in effect be defeated. He was willing to accede to the suggestions that the vestries should be consulted, and that the consent of the local authorities should be obtained.

MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONS

complained that the clause was drawn up from too narrow a view of the state of the country.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

said, that the clause would make it possible for a couple of ratepayers—a mason and a carpenter—to apply for leave to provide a slaughterhouse. If the slaughterhouses were to be erected for the benefit of the small farmers, they could afford to pay for them; and if they were not for the benefit of the small farmers, but of the consumers, it seemed hardly fair that the former should have their rates increased for such an object.

LORD ELCHO

said, that the poor rates in many districts were already so heavy that it was not desirable to increase them unnecessarily; and as it was to the interest of all parties that cattle should be slaughtered, there could be no doubt that means would be found for slaughtering them.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

would appeal to his hon. Friend not to go to a division on this clause. There might be in some places a private slaughterhouse already established, and the clause might be the means of establishing an unfair competition with it. The clause was a voluntary one, and it would be easy for those who wanted a slaughterhouse to provide one by voluntary arrangement.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

also trusted that his hon. Friend would not go to a division. In his county (Kent) the magistrates allowed no licences, with the view of having the cattle slaughtered on the farm. The disease had ever since steadily diminished, and it had not been found, as had been feared, that the sending the butcher to the farm had spread the infection.

MR. HUNT

said, that as the feeling of the Committee seemed to be opposed to the clause, he would withdraw it.

Amendment withdrawn.

Clause struck out.

Clause 17 (General Prohibition of Movement of Cattle).

COLONEL LOYD LINDSAY

said, he could not agree to the clause, which contained the principle of the Bill of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire, believing that it would only increase the catastrophe which they were all seeking to avoid—namely, a deficiency in the supply of food next year. By adopting such strict regulations they would only prevent the breeding and rearing of cattle. The advance in the price of meat would be a sufficient encouragement to the producers, but these restrictions would prevent the natural operation of this inducement. Counties which were now free from the pest—such as Berkshire and Wales—would gladly avail themselves of the opportunity of producing an article of such value; and they would very shortly, if they were not prevented, rear twice as much stock as they did at present. Instead, however, of doing this, they were not now rearing half so much as they might do. He had been told of one case in his own district in which a farmer had been obliged to plough in his turnips because he could not get cattle to eat them. Some districts were free from the disease, and Nature pointed out to them the opportunity they had of rearing extra stock, and thus compensating for the losses of the less-favoured districts. In his opinion the cattle plague must run its course, and all Parliament could do was to mitigate its effects. If when the plague destroyed 100 in one county the farmers of another county reared 100 extra stock, they would make up for the deficiency. The remedy was that recommended by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to place in the hands of the local authorities the power of granting licences. That power was found to work well, and, whatever people might say, they must go back to it.

MR. SCOURFIELD

said, it was true that a large part of Wales had hitherto escaped the disease, but no one knew how soon it might appear there. He believed that the system of licences would only produce confusion and unequal action, and he would propose to give the Privy Council the power of declaring certain districts to be uninfected,

MR. HUNT

said, that the Bill of the Government only dealt with the railway movement of cattle for the interval between the present moment and the 25th of March. What was urgent was, that the movement of cattle should be stopped as soon as possible, and he proposed now to ask the House to discuss the clauses relative to the movement of cattle up to the 25th of March. If the House stopped the movement of cattle until then there would be time before that day to discuss under what conditions cattle should be removed afterwards. There would be no occasion to alter anything in the clause except the date, and he would propose to substitute the words "the 25th of March" for "the 30th of April." There were many persons who had got cattle feeding on the crops of others, and it was, he thought, desirable that they should have a few days' notice in order that they might be able to bring those cattle home.

SIR ANDREW AGNEW

hoped the Committee would not pass the clause without making the exceptions that in counties free from the plague any sound beasts might be moved to a port of embarkation under a licence from the local authority, unless determined otherwise by the justices sitting in session. The county he represented (Wigtonshire) was bounded on two sides by the sea, and on another by a hilly country. At present their communication was by rail, but that was cut off by the Bill. The farmers there, he thought, ought to be allowed to have access to the seaboard in order to be enabled to send off their cattle. Otherwise they would sustain great losses.

MR. BARROW

suggested that the great majority of those tenants who were preparing to leave their farms on the 25th of March would be put to great inconvenience if, meantime, they were not enabled to sell their cattle and obtain facilities for their removal.

MR. BANKS STANHOPE

said, he saw no difficulty in having the sales take place on the 22nd or 23rd of March, and leaving the cattle to be removed until the 26th. In the case of the north-west of Scotland a certain latitude might be allowed under the operation of the Bill.

MR. FLOYER

said, he was encouraged by what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman to make an appeal on behalf of the county which he had the honour to represent (Dorsetshire), which he was happy to say was entirely free from the plague. There were many large dairy farms on which great inconvenience would be occasioned by the strict enforcement of provisions prohibiting the movement of cattle up to the 25th of March. Seeing that county jurisdiction was so universally recognized for all purposes, there could be no objection to adopting it for this. The hon. Member for Lincolnshire (Mr. Banks Stanhope) admitted that, under certain circumstances, counties might be excepted from the operation of the Bill if they were free from disease; and unless he had an intimation that exceptions of this kind would be made he must, with much regret, vote against this part of the Bill.

MR. AYRTON

said, they were discussing all sorts of imaginary exceptions, which would assume a more definite form when they had passed the clause, as they might do, seeing that it anticipated necessary exceptions.

MR. DYCE NICOL

said, that he was glad to find that the hon. Member for Northamptonshire had acceded to the suggestions made that the duration of his Bill and that of the Cattle Plague Bill should he the same—namely, until 25th proximo, by which time he hoped that the country, as regards this calamity, might be under more favourable circumstances. He had received from the chairman of the Kincardineshire Rinderpest Association a letter of which, with the Committee's permission, he would read an extract— The dissolution of our association in the prospect of the passing of the Government Bill gives me great satisfaction, as we could not have gone on. The disease has assumed so mild a form in Kincardineshire, that it would have been impossible, and certainly imprudent, to enforce the stamping-out policy, seeing that recoveries are the rule and deaths the exception. He had just received a telegram from a tenant-farmer at Fordoun confirming the above, and stating, that if owners were more watchful of the first symptoms of the disease the recoveries might soon amount to 90 per cent. He was not aware what Amendment the hon. Member for Northamptonshire was now about to make in the restrictions on traffic under his Bill, but he must say uniformity was impracticable, regulations applicable to Northamptonshire would not answer for either the Lowlands or Highlands of Scotland.

Amendment made: Words "30th day of April" struck out, and the words "25th day of March" inserted in lieu thereof.

MR. HUSSEY VIVIAN

rose to pro-pose the Amendment of which he had given notice in the interest of a large district, containing counties that had not been infected, and others in which there had been comparatively few cases of disease—namely, Monmouth, Hereford, Gloucester, &c. No part of England had adopted more Stringent measures than the quarter sessions of this had, and their orders had done more to protect it from exposure than would this Bill, if it had been passed in its first form. In this district it would he almost cruel to prohibit the movement of cattle up to the 25th of March. His Amendment was, that the fallowing proviso be added at the end of Clause 17:— Provided nevertheless that nothing in this Act contained shall prevent the removal of live beasts within any district which the Lords of Her Majesty's Privy Council shall, by Order in Council, declare to be free from Cattle Plague, such district being of not less area than one thousand square miles, and having well-defined boundaries, within five miles of which boundaries, not being formed by sea, no movement of live beasts shall take place: Provided, also, That such Order may from time to time be revoked. He would rather have suggested that infected districts should be declared; but he felt that there were grave objections to doing that, and he therefore chose a negative instead of a positive clause.

COLONEL PENNANT

wished for some explanation in regard to the concluding portion of the clause. Did the hon. Gentleman mean five miles within the boundary, or five miles beyond it?

MR. HUSSEY VIVIAN

said, he meant five miles within the boundary, in order that there might be a zone which would be a security against infection. That plan had been successfully adopted in Devonshire and other counties, and universally on the Continent.

MR. ACLAND

thought the clause was a very important one, but he would suggest that the following addition should be made to it:— Provided that satisfactory evidence be produced that no case of cattle plague has occurred in such districts within two months previous to the date of such order, and that such order shall, ipso facto, be revoked on a due notification being made to the Clerk of the Peace for the county, that a case of cattle plague has occurred in such county.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, the object of the Amendment was to affirm the third Resolution passed at the meeting in the tea-room. It had been remarked, however, by several hon. Gentlemen, that that Resolution was passed in great confusion at the close of the meeting, and that the majority of those present did not agree to it. The hon. Gentleman proposed that the Privy Council should have power to declare certain districts to be uninfected. No power would in that case be given to the local authorities; and some counties would be prevented from taking those wise precautions which they were now taking with the view of keeping out the cattle plague. Looking at the various circumstances in different parts of the country, he thought it would be impossible to prevent the local authorities from exercising discretionary power to a great extent. This only showed that he was correct in stating at the commencement of the discussion, how difficult it was to frame a general code of regulations for the whole country. He would consent, however, to the clause being passed now, on the understanding that the objections were to be taken into consideration at a future time.

SIR ANDREW AGNEW

said, he had prepared an Amendment, reserving the power to the local authorities— In counties free from the cattle plague any sound beast may, on a licence being obtained for that purpose, be moved along any highway to a port of embarkation, unless the local authorities should determine otherwise.

MR. CUMMING-BRUCE

said, he believed that if in the northern counties sheep and cattle were not allowed to be brought down from the mountainous districts in the winter time many of them would perish from hunger. He would therefore propose this proviso:— Provided, also, that the power by law now vested in the local authorities of these counties shall remain in force, and that in the event of the cattle plague appearing in any one of the counties aforesaid, it shall be lawful for the Lords of the Privy Council to extend those provisions of this Act as may be necessary to such counties.

MR. OWEN STANLEY

thought the area ought not to be specified, but that it should be left to the Privy Council to define what districts were free from disease. In other respects, he agreed with the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. Hussey Vivian.)

MR. PUGH

said, he was in favour of] the proviso of his hon. Friend, inasmuch as it gave the discretion to the Privy Council, which had advantages which other: bodies had not. It had a Veterinary Department, and made reports of the state of the disease from week to week in all parts of the country. He therefore thought it was a power which, in the words of the right hon, Baronet, "might hold the reins according to the shifting circumstances of the hour" and loosen them or tighten them at discretion— — Qui fœdere certo Et premere et laxas sciret dare jussus habenas. They were now, in the presence of an impending calamity, asked to place the country as to cattle in a quasi state of siege, and apply to them some of the conditions of martial law. Where these were required, they would be cheerfully submitted to, but he hoped that in uninfected districts like his own, they would not be made to operate with greater stringency than public opinion and reason and sound policy dictated.

COLONEL LOYD LINDSEY

said, he fully recognized the object of the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. Hussey Vivian), which was to enable those districts which were free from the plague freely to rear cattle and thus benefit themselves and others. But the Privy Council might declare a district free from infection, and the disease might reappear and spread over it again. He would therefore suggest that the proviso should run thus:— Provided, nevertheless, that nothing in this Act contained shall prevent the removal of live beasts within any district which the Court of Quarter Sessions may declare free from the cattle plague.

MR. HUSSEY VIVIAN

said, that in his own part of the world they had made the most stringent regulations as to the movement of cattle. But absolutely to prohibit in districts which never had been infected, and were very extensive, the movement of stock, because there was disease in other parts of England, was really going too far, and was not consistent with common sense. The county of Pembroke, for instance, was a very large stock-breeding county; it was 150 miles from any disease, and was it to be proposed that there was to be no movement of cattle there?

MR. MITFORD

trusted that the proviso of the hon. Gentleman (Colonel Lindsay) for some similar one, would be agreed to. In the Western Division of Sussex, which he represented, there was no infection, and the effect of the clause preventing the movement of cattle would be to debar him and almost every farmer in that district from sending his cattle to drink the water to which they were accustomed. They were content to submit to all necessary restrictions; but he thought that in a district in which there was no infection it was unnecessary to submit to these stringent regulations which were suitable for infected districts. On the contrary, it was desirable to encourage by every possible way the growth of stock in counties without infection; and in the South Downs, the district in which he lived, it was a question whether any stock should be kept at all. The farmers there should rather be encouraged to breed stock in order to make up for the deficiency in other parts of the country.

MR. ADDERLEY

said, that if they were to continue this discussion on the proviso much longer, they would soon have as many verbal Amendments as there were Members of the Committee present. They were pretty well agreed both as to the clause and the proviso. Every one might have a fancy for some particular wording, but they were agreed that where there was any large district free from the plague, it should not be subject to the most stringent rules. ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary cheered as if his first view of the subject—that it was impossible to introduce uniform regulations —was conceded in that view. But what they were now about to do was totally different. The right hon. Gentleman's first view was, that in those parts of the county which were subjected to the cattle plague uniform regulations could not be laid down; but it was now proposed that for those districts which were subject to the plague uniform regulations should be laid down. Where there were very large districts which had been free from the plague, and were separated from the rest of the kingdom by distinct natural boundaries, it would be a great absurdity and an infliction of a great injustice to impose such restrictions at all. The practical question was, whether in ten counties in Wales and nine counties in Scotland which remained wholly uninfected the orders passed by the local authorities should not still be retained, but the provisions of this Bill should not enter. There was, he believed, no objection to that. And in addition to the ten Welsh and the nine Scotch counties the islands upon the coast, such as the Hebrides, ought to be excepted. All he rose to say now was, that if they were agreed upon the clause, and practically upon the proviso as they appeared to be, the sooner they said so the better. The only suggestion he would make was that the hon. Member (Mr. Hussey Vivian) should omit the definition of his area—namely, "a thousand square miles." Why not say, "being of large area, and having well-defined boundaries?"

SIR GEORGE GREY

had no objection to the substance of the proviso if modified in the way he had suggested. What he wanted was that there should be a distinct power given by law to the local authorities in these districts to make such regulations as in their particular case appeared desirable.

MR. HUSSEY VIVIAN

said, that he would modify the clause by leaving out the words relating to area, and adding words giving permission to the Cattle Board to prevent the introduction of animals into the districts mentioned in the clause.

SIR GEORGE GREY

asked what were to be the boundaries of the districts mentioned in the clause.

MR. HUNT

said, that there were certain natural boundaries which could be made the boundaries between the infected districts and the districts to which the clause would extend. For instance, Inverness-shire was mentioned in the tea-room as one of the five Scotch counties reported to be free from the disease; but two days afterwards a case of the plague was reported as having appeared in the southern part of the county. But a great chain of rivers, lakes, and canals called the Great Glen of Scotland separated the southern part of Inverness-shire and the South from the northern part of the county and the North of Scotland, and formed the boundary between the infected and the uninfected districts. In Wales a mountainous district separated the places where the disease prevailed from those which were free from it. These natural boundaries could be strictly guarded and the disease held in check as if it was an invading army.

MR. BARING

said, he differed from the hon. Member for Northamptonshire in the view he took of the matter. He agreed that some power should be given to the counties not infected to prevent the introduction of diseased cattle; for it was quite impossible to agree to such stringent provisions as these proposed with respect to that large part of England which was still free from disease. He had before him the statistics of the progress of the disease in the last week. There were 84 counties in England, Wales, and Scotland. There were no fresh outbreaks and no attacks at all in 34 counties—8 in England, 10 in Wales, and 16 in Scotland. In 8 other counties—3 in Scotland and 5 in England—no fresh outbreaks had taken place, although there were attacks in places where the disease had before existed. In 22 other counties—14 in England and 8 in Scotland—there were less than 5 fresh places in which the disease had broken out. The figures therefore showed that in 64 out of 84 counties the disease had not spread to any great or serious extent; and in these 64 counties he hoped there would not be much difficulty, with the aid of the powers given by Parliament, in putting a stop to the disease. With regard to the remaining counties there were many attacks of the disease, and in some of those counties it had raged fearfully. Out of these 20 counties there were 4 in which the number of attacks was not less than seven-tenths of the whole. In the 64 counties partially infected there were only 792 attacks in the course of the week. In the 20 other counties there were 10,798 cases. In the four counties to which he had referred—Cheshire, Lincolnshire, Yorkshire, and Forfarshire—there were 7,338 attacks, and in the other 16 counties only 3,460. It was impossible to say that regulations of equal stringency were applicable under such circumstances over the whole country.

MR. ADDERLEY

said, that the clause might almost have specified the counties in which the disease had not made its appearance and separated them from the rest. There would be nothing more mischievous than that the local authority should have the power of making orders. Where the cattle plague existed, there let there be uniform rules.

After further discussion, the words "being of not less area than one thousand square miles" were struck out of the Amendment.

Proviso added— Provided, nevertheless, that nothing in this Act contained shall prevent the Removal of live Beasts within any district which the Lords of Her Majesty's Privy Council shall by Order in Council declare to be free from Cattle Plague, such District having well-defined Boundaries; Provided also, that such Order may from Time to Time be varied or revoked.

LORD EDWARD HOWARD

suggested whether it would not be desirable to enable the local authorities of Manchester, and other large towns similarly situated, to increase their market accommodation for dead meat. The result of the Government Bill and of the present Bill would be to alter the supply of meat to the people. He apprehended that when the movement of cattle was checked the dead meat would be sure to find its way into the largest market of the neighbourhood with which he was connected—namely, Manchester, and that the inhabitants of that populous district would have to get their supplies from that town. He doubted, however, whether at Manchester there now existed the means of so exhibiting the meat that a proper choice could be made of it by purchasers, and it might be expedient to empower the authorities, by levying tolls, to extend their accommodation for that purpose. Again, in order to afford facilities for the due supply of certain towns, it might also be desirable to enable them to hold more frequent markets.

Proviso added— Provided that it shall be lawful for the Local Authority having jurisdiction within the District so exempted as aforesaid by Order to be published in some Newspaper circulating within its Jurisdiction, to prohibit altogether or to impose Restrictions or Conditions on the Introduction of Beasts into its District, and also on the Removal of Beasts from Place to Place within its District.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, [cl. 5.]

Clause 18 (Exception for Movement where separate Lands in same Occupation).

MR. BONHAM-CARTER

asked, what was meant by the word "closes?"

MR. HUNT

replied, that "close" was a legal term known to the law.

MR. BONHAM-CARTER

wished to know whether it would be possible under the operation of the clause as it stood for a farmer whose cattle might be in a homestead in some village to send them to the pasturage which was their feeding ground. He should propose the substitution of the word "land" for "closes."

MR. HUNT

said, he did not quite understand what his hon. Friend meant by the word "land." The meaning of the clause as it stood was, that cattle might be moved about from field to field on the owner's farm, but that they could not travel along a road for more than a distance of 200 yards.

MR. KEKEWICH

observed, that in many cases the highway intersected the farm and divided the homesteads in which the cattle were kept from the pasture grounds, and that great inconvenience would be caused to farmers in the county with which he was connected if the clause passed in its present shape. He should therefore suggest that, instead of restricting the distance as proposed, the local authorities should be empowered to allow cattle to be driven to their pastures under a licence.

MAJOR WINDSOR PARKER

suggested that the distance of 200 yards should be increased to half a mile.

SIR GEORGE GREY

believed that the word "field" would be better understood than "close" or "land."

SIR FITZROY KELLY

thought that "land" would comprise everything; while the same could not be said either of "close" or "field."

MR. EVANS

advocated the insertion of the words "with a licence."

MR. HUNT

thought that if a licence were necessary to every removal the clause would be found to be too stringent.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

believed the Amendment would be found exceedingly vexatious, and hoped that it would not be passed. He suggested that the words allowing the movement from one part of the farm to another over 200 yards of highway should he struck out, so that farmers might freely avail themselves of all portions of their farms.

MR. HUNT

said, that the reason why he had specified 200 yards was because some farmers had fields on both sides of a road. He desired that some restriction should be placed, even if farmers should be allowed to move their cattle three, four, or five hundred yards instead of two; but if they were left unrestricted as to distance it might lead to great danger.

SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTE

reminded the Committee that if the suggestion of the hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) were accepted, farmers would frequently drive their cattle along the high road, because portions of their farms might be scattered widely over the country.

SIR EDWARD BULLER

said, the restriction of the movement of the cattle to 200 yards would frequently prevent their being taken to the brook where they were accustomed to drink.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

could scarcely conceive a better mode of spreading the infection than that to which the hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Sir Edward Buller) referred.

SIR EDWARD BULLER

advocated the retention of an old custom, and not the adoption of a new practice. He would ten times sooner have the cattle plague among his herd than be unable to obtain water for their use.

MR. P. S. POWELL

said, there was a degree of confusion in the use of the word "farm." In many cases the fields of a single farm were spread over a good deal of country, and were frequently partially separated. The distance of 200 yards ought to be increased.

LORD BURGHLEY

said, that some hon. Gentlemen appeared to imagine that the Bill was to be a permanent one. If they wished to diminish the disease they must adopt the most stringent measures.

LORD GEORGE CAVENDISH

agreed with the hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Sir Edward Buller) in thinking that the animals ought to be allowed to be taken to the brook. This clause was an example showing the inconvenience of having one invariable rule to be enforced throughout the whole country.

MR. HUNT

said, he must press it on the recollection of the Committee that the clause was a relaxing clause, permitting farmers to move their cattle 200 yards along a road without a licence, and he could not see what necessity there was to restrict this limited freedom of motion by rendering a licence requisite before the cattle could be removed that short distance, especially after Government had given their sanction to that distance; for in the Bill which they introduced the local authorities, by the 22nd clause, had power to impose restrictions on the removal of animals from place to place, excepting to the extent of 200 yards on the same farm; and that was all that this clause proposed. If the hon. Member for Devonshire (Mr. Kekewich) were desirous that power should be given to move the animals a greater distance under licences, he should introduce a new clause to effect his object, but he should not interfere with the relaxing clause now under consideration. The farmers in his own county (Northamptonshire) would be put to the greatest inconvenience by the restriction of the distance to 200 yards; but they had made up their minds to put up with it for the sake of the general good. It was a material fact that, until the end of March, there would be but slight necessity for moving cattle, as they were at present fed upon dry food, which could be carried to them; and if the beasts were in the fields there was no reason why they should not remain in their pasture. In the case of milking cows, he had inquired whether the farmers would not require them to be brought home to be milked; the answer was, that it would be a great inconvenience, and break into their usual customs; but that they would rather send the milkman to the cow. The strongest case of all that had been made out for an enlargement of the limit was that of the cow about to calve, as at first sight it would appear impossible to leave the cow and new offspring in the fields exposed to inclement weather; but he had been informed that by means of straw and hurdles a sufficient shelter for both might be easily provided, and farmers were willing to run even this risk in order to put a stop to the plague. Then, with respect to watering the cattle, it had been found in Huntingdonshire and Northamptonshire that taking cattle to running streams to water was a most effectual method of spreading the disease, and so strongly was he impressed with the fear of contagion thus conveyed that he had given directions that in future his cows were to be supplied with water pumped up from a well, and not with water from the adjoining river; and although it might be a great expense, yet it was quite possible to take water to the pastures. His advice to farmers, if they wished to stop the cattle plague, was not to allow their cattle to be driven to a river or stream for water, but to put up with any inconvenience rather than run so great a risk.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, as he understood the clause, farmers were to have an absolute right to move their cattle 200 yards without any licence being required, whereas the Amendment proposed would take away that right, and at the same time give the local authorities power to permit cattle to be removed even for a greater distance under a licence. He had no objection to a discretionary power being given to the local authorities to enlarge the limit so long as the right of the farmer to remove his cattle 200 yards without licence was left untouched.

LORD GEORGE CAVENDISH

explained that he wished to make the clause more stringent instead of relaxing it. He had said nothing whatever as to enlarging the limit.

MR. KEKEWICH

thought that in unaffected districts the local authorities should have power to grant licences for the removal of sound cattle under certain circumstances. That seemed to him to be the good sense of the case.

MR. ADDERLEY

was of opinion that if the Amendment were carried the practice would vary in every county, and the Act would be rendered nugatory.

MR. BOVILL

said, his practical experience in some parts of the country showed him that many small fanners—especially those occupying land in the home counties—were compelled to drive their cattle from the hills to the lowlands, and he thought 200 yards was too close a limit. What he proposed was to leave the farmers at liberty to move their cattle 200 yards without licences, and at the end of the clause to add words giving the local authorities power to grant licences for the removal of cattle a certain further distance, say of 500 yards. He did not intend absolutely to fix the limit to 500 yards, that was a matter for the House to determine.

MR. LOCKE KING

thought that when the farmer had two farms at some distance from each other the question as to the propriety of removing the animals might be safely left in his hands, as he would not be anxious to convey the disease from one of his homesteads to the other.

VISCOUNT CRANBOURNE

hoped, in case the principle of the Amendment, which practically gave power to the local authorities to set the Act at defiance, should be adopted in any form, that the local authorities should be interpreted to mean the magistrates assembled in quarter sessions. Some people did not believe in infection at all, and there were eccentric justices of the peace as well as Ministers of State, and therefore it was necessary to be careful as to whom the power was intrusted.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, there were no provisions whatever in the Bill for granting licences, and therefore he should have no objection whatever to insert the words proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Guildford (Mr. Bovill).

MR. HENLEY

said, this was an exception to a very stringent rule, and they ought not to pass it without making it really useful. He understood the clause to be confined to one occupation. The machinery for the licence was already in the Bill. Where a man happened to have a large farm, say of 1,000 acres, highways might run along unfenced through the middle of his fields, and certainly he ought to have the power of moving his cattle with a licence from one part of his farm to another. If they did not give facilities of that kind the Act would be evaded, or an outcry would be raised against it throughout the country.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

said, he thought it very desirable to have the clause so framed that a distinction should be drawn between lands where a man had an interest, and where he would move his cattle cautiously, and a piece of grass-land which he rented, perhaps a couple of miles distant, and where he would have less objection to send his infected animals. Some kind of licence he thought was necessary to give the farmer the right to remove his cattle to distant grazing-ground.

SIR EDWARD BULLER

said, he hoped they would not attempt to make the Bill too stringent. He believed the slaughtering clauses would occasion considerable difficulty. He had heard to-day the case of a very respectable man who had twenty-two valuable beasts that had taken the plague—twenty were recovering; but according to this Act of Parliament the inspector might direct that the whole herd should be slaughtered. The owner of these cattle said he would suffer anything, he would almost rise in rebellion, rather than permit this, He would strongly urge the House to see how far the provisions of the Bill could be relaxed.

MR. HUNT

asked if his hon. Friend intended that the licence should last till revoked. A man might get a licence when there was no cattle plague on his farm. The disease might break out among his cattle on the following day, and his licence would entitle him to remove them.

MR. HENLEY

said, he was not afraid the clause would open the door to diseased cattle. Cattle to be moved at all must be sound. The owner must give proof of their soundness before the licence was granted.

SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE

ap prehended no difficulty in the practical working of the clause. No justice of the peace would grant a licence without requiring proofs that the cattle to be moved were sound.

MR. KEKEWICH

thought the matter not so simple as it was supposed to be. The clause permitted the farmer to move his cattle 200 yards along the highway; and if he went 210 yards he was fined. If he wanted to move them from the homestead to a pasture at a distance exceeding 200 yards he would have to apply to the local authority, who would give him a licence so long as the cattle were sound.

MR. NEWDEGATE

hoped that the distance would be extended, and that the limit would be assigned in the licence.

MR. BOVILL

then moved, as an Amendment, to add the following words to the clause:— And with a licence for any longer distance and until such licence shall be revoked by any justice of the peace. The clause as it stood enabled sound cattle to be moved without licence 200 yards on any public highway for the purpose of being taken from one building, yard, or close to another building, yard, or close in the same occupation; and the effect of his Amendment would be to allow them to be moved with a licence a further distance on the highway.

Amendment proposed, at the end of the Clause, to add the words "and with a licence for any longer distance, and until such licence shall be revoked by any justice of the peace."—(Mr. Bovill.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

SIR GEORGE GREY

concurred in the substance of the Amendment, but suggested that the words "justice of the peace" should be omitted, as the authority to grant the licence would be settled by a subsequent clause.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "by any justice of the peace."—(Sir George Grey.)

MR. BOVILL

consented to omit those words.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.

VISCOUNT CRANBOURNE

said, that it was not only necessary that the persons to grant the licences should be settled by the Bill, but also that the licences should be sanctioned by the local authorities.

MR. HUNT

observed, that there was nothing in the Amendment to limit the distance to which cattle might be moved. He knew persons who had occupations three or four counties apart; and the Amendment would permit the removal of cattle from a farm in Caithness to a farm in Cornwall. The clause was drawn up for one purpose, and it was now attempted to turn it to another. He suggested that it should be allowed to stand as it was originally framed, and if the hon. and learned Member desired to take the sense of the House on his proposition let him bring it up as a separate clause.

Question put, "That the words 'and with a licence for any longer distance, and until such licence shall be revoked,' be added at the end of Clause 14."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 146; Noes 83; Majority 63.

VISCOUNT CRANBOURNE

observed, that the Committee while intending to facilitate communication between diffierent parts of a farm, did not mean to sanction communication between widely-distant farms, nor to encourage evasion by butchers; and he would therefore move an Amendment suggested by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, to limit to two miles the distance within which cattle might be moved under licence.

MR. BOVILL

would be quite content with the limitation; indeed, he would rather say one mile.

COLONEL WILSON PATTEN moved that the distance be one mile.

The latter Amendment put, and negatived.

MR. HUNT

complained that the Committee had gone to a division which meant nothing, and had got rid of one clause to insert another. If his recommendation had been adopted and a new clause brought up, the difficulty would have been escaped.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, that whatever the division meant it had effected a great deal.

MR. HENLEY

justified the division, on the ground that it had widened an exception to a stringent enactment.

MR. E. CRAUFURD,

who knew a case in which a farmer's holdings were three miles apart, would leave the limitation of distances to local authorities.

Amendment to insert "provided that such distance shall not exceed two miles,"agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to. [cl. 6.]

Clause 19 (Exception for Beasts imported).

MR. HUNT moved that it be omitted, in order that a new clause might be afterwards inserted in its place.

Clause struck out.

Clause 20 (Exception for Beasts going to Slaughterhouse under the Act).

SIR EDWARD BULLER moved the substitution of the word "cattle" for "live beasts." The word "cattle" expressed the whole bovine race; and though it was true the word "beast" was occasionally used in that sense, still it was not a classical expression.

MR. HUNT

remarked that it was a pity that the hon. Member had not made the objection before, as two clauses had been already passed which contained the word "beast." Besides, the meaning of the word was explained in the Interpretation clause.

Amendment withdrawn.

SIR JOHN SIMEON moved that the distance to which cattle might be moved for the purpose of slaughter should be six miles instead of two, as proposed by the preceding clause as amended in Committee.

MR. HUNT

said, he should not oppose the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

SIR JOHN SIMEON

proposed to substitute the words "immediate slaughter," instead of the words "being taken to be slaughtered at a slaughterhouse provided under the Act."

MR. HUNT

suggested to leave out the words "to be taken to be slaughtered" to the end, so that the clause might stand "for immediate slaughter at a slaughterhouse."

The latter Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to. [cl. 7.]

Clauses 21, 22, 23 withdrawn, Mr. HUNT having agreed to bring up new clauses.

Clause 24 (Exception for Breeding).

MR. LOCKE KING moved to omit the words "from the 25th of March, 1866," inclusive, in order that the clause might come into immediate operation.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10 (Exception for Calves).

MR. LOCKE-KING

said, that this was a most dangerous clause. It would be very desirable that opportunities should be given for the transfer of cattle from one farm to another. At present, owing to the stringent regulations in force, calves were often slaughtered as soon as they were dropped, and he need not say what a very serious thing anything approaching to a general slaughter of the young stock in the country would be.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, that the high price of milk, coupled with the restrictions on the movement of cattle, was causing an alarming destruction of newly-dropped calves in the dairy farms near the great towns. He did hope the Committee would do something to enable these young calves to be reared.

MR. WALPOLE

thought that nothing could be more serious than this; there could be nothing more dangerous than the young stock of the country being cut off in this manner. He thought that Parliament ought not only give every facility to farmers to send the calves to breeding farms, but ought even pass an Act to prevent their reckless slaughter. In the Act passed a hundred years ago, one of the provisions was that no cow calves should be killed, in order that the breed of cattle might not be diminished. Some such provision might be inserted in the present Act.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, he had been in communication with all parts of the country, and he thought that it was full time to do something to put a stop to the promiscuous slaughter of calves. He need not say what a very serious matter it would be if by their needless slaughter the future sup- ply of food was to be seriously diminished.

MR. HUNT

said that if it was the wish of the House he would introduce into the clause any insertions that the House wished for in order to enable the calves to be brought from the farms where they were dropped to farms where they would be reared.

Amendments made.

On Question, That the clause as amended stand part of the Bill,

MR. LOCKE KING

said, he thought the clause an objectionable one; a great danger would arise from the intervention of the dealers in calves. He was disposed to divide the Committee on it.

SIR GEORGE GREY

observed, that the various opinions entertained on the subject of this 21st clause afforded another illustration of the difficulty of dealing with this subject by statutory regulations, and convinced him that it would be better to leave it to the local authorities to make regulations suitable to the requirements of their respective counties.

MR. HUNT

said, that if each county must have exactly what would suit itself, there would be no possibility of making such regulations as would be likely to stamp out the plague.

MR. W. DUNCOMBE

said, the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary had several times made observations that showed he was still in favour of permissive legislation, and of leaving matters to the local authorities. He could state, however, from his own experience of courts of quarter sessions, that they objected to matters being left to them. They objected to the Government shifting the responsibility from their own shoulders and placing it upon those of country Gentlemen.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 22 postponed.

Clause 23 amended, and agreed to.

Clause 24 negatived.

Clause 28 (Presumption against person moving).

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he thought it could hardly stand in its present form. Clause 14 had authorized the movement of cattle to a certain limited extent without any licence. But this clause presumed from the mere fact of cattle being found upon the highway that they were being moved in contraven- tion of the Act, until the contrary was shown. How was the contrary to be shown, and to whose satisfaction?

MR. HUNT

said, the act was to be proved, not to the satisfaction of the policeman who might stop the cattle, but of the magistrate before whom the person in charge was brought.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that he foresaw grave inconveniences arising from the plan. There was a manifest inconsistency between the two clauses.

VISCOUNT CRANBOURNE

suggested that the difficulty might be removed by giving a permanent licence to all persons requiring to move cattle upon their own grounds.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the suggestion was a wise and practical one, but words giving effect to it must be added to the clause.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

said, that within the very short distance which cattle could be moved under Clause 14, the owners and the cattle themselves would be very well known.

MR. DENT

thought this was precisely a case where a policeman owing a grudge to a farmer would have an opportunity of gratifying it by causing him petty annoyance.

MR. AYRTON

foresaw this further difficulty about the explanation. The driver, not the cow, was to be taken before a magistrate for the purpose; and what was to become of the cow in the meantime. Everybody would be placed in a most embarrassing position.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH,

with a view of rendering the clause more intelligible, moved the insertion of the following words:—"Except for the space of 200 yards, as hereinbefore provided in Clause 14 of this Act."

MR. HENLEY

said, that the 25th and 26th clauses must be considered together. The 28th clause threw the burden of proof upon the person having charge or possession of the cattle. A boy might be driving two or three cows and might be met by a policeman. Unless the boy could give a satisfactory account of the matter the policeman would carry off the boy and the cows to the station-house. Within forty-eight hours he must take him before the justice; but no provision was made by the clause for taking the owner of the cattle before the justice. How was this wretched boy, who probably knew nothing of arith- metic, to substantiate his story that the distance was not more than 200 yards? If, however, he could not prove the fact the cattle were to be killed, forfeited, and sold. But that was not all the mischief. Suppose the cattle were diseased. The station-house, or the pound, which was the station-house for cattle, might be six or seven miles off, and the cattle would have to be driven all the distance. The clauses certainly required more consideration.

VISCOUNT CRANBOURNE

said, that the case of the boy might be pitiful, but the case of the policeman was more pitiful still, because he would have to drive the cattle, and being the driver of the cattle under the law he might be taken up by another policeman. The second policeman would then in his turn become the driver of the cattle according to the Act, and so it might go on until all the police of the county would be found arresting one another.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, there was another important person—the common informer. If he found the boy and the cattle he might assume that the cattle were being removed without authority. By the Act the common informer was to receive half the penalty.

MR. HUNT

suggested that the difficulty might he met by inserting, after the word "presume," the words "on any inquiry before a justice."

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

would remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, although a common informer might obtain a portion of the penalty, he could neither stop the animals nor arrest the driver.

MR. AYRTON

would recommend the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunt) to take time to amend the clause, and for this purpose he moved that the Chairman report Progress.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Ayrton.)

The Committee divided:—Ayes 25; Noes 117: Majority 92.

MR. HUNT

proposed that the clause should run thus— Where any person is charged before a Justice of the Peace with having moved a live beast on a public highway, it shall be presumed that it has been so moved in contravention of this Act until the contrary is shown.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to. [cl. 12.]

Clause 29 (Power for Constables to stop Beasts on highways).

MR. OWEN STANLEY

suggested the desirability of reporting Progress, that the Bill might be re-printed.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he was afraid, notwithstanding his desire to go on with the Bill, that it would be impossible to finish it during the present sitting. Perhaps the hon. Member would be kind enough to say where he would stop, and what he proposed for consideration during the next sitting.

MR. HUNT

said, he had hoped they would have been able to finish that portion of the Bill under discussion. With regard to the printing, he would assist in that respect as much as he was able; but the Amendments made in the Bill necessitated the framing of new clauses; and he did not think he could give notice of them then. The question of moving of hides was very important, so also was the cleansing of cattle grounds. He supposed it would be best to proceed with the consideration of the Bill after the "Notices" to-morrow—or rather he should say to-day, as it was past midnight.

SIR GEORGE GREY

remarked that as the clause stood a person with a certificate authorizing him to move a beast would be liable to be apprehended, He therefore proposed to insert after the word "beast" the words "unless such person or persons can produce a licence authorizing him to remove such beast."

MR. HUNT

said, it was desirable in addition to this to add a sentence protecting those moving cattle on their farms.

Clause, as amended, agreed to. [cl, 13.]

Clause 30 (Power to Justices to order beast to be killed, &c),

SIR EDWARD BULLER

remarked, that it was impossible to pass it as it stood. The justices would have a direct personal interest in seizing a beast driven on the road. They were authorized to dispose of it as they thought fit. They might even eat it.

MR. HUNT

said, great efforts would be made to smuggle beasts from place to place at night, and great risks would he run by the drivers to get the beasts moved, He therefore thought it desirable to have some such stringent provision as that proposed. Drivers should be made to lose as much as possible if they acted contrary to the Act.

Clause amended, and agreed to. [cl. 14.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

House adjourned at One o'clock.